Category: EU

Hungary Update: EDPB publishes Statement on Art. 23 GDPR

17. June 2020

Since March 2020, Hungary has been in a “state of emergency” following the COVID-19 pandemic. The country’s COVID-19 related emergency laws and state of emergency received worldwide criticism from constitutional experts, politicians and civil rights groups, because it allows the Prime Minister to rule by decree during the state of emergency and does not provide a predefined end date. During the state of emergency, Prime Minister Victor Orbán made extensive use of his newly gained powers by passing more than a hundred decrees, including Decree No. 179/2020, which suspended the GDPR data subject rights in Art. 15-22 GDPR with respect to personal data processing for the purpose of preventing, understanding, detecting the coronavirus disease and impeding its further spread (we reported).

In response to this suspension of GDPR rights, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has recently published a Statement on restrictions on data subject rights pursuant to Art. 23 GDPR, which is the provision that Hungary’s measure was based on. This article allows the member states to restrict, by way of a legislative measure, the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Articles 12 to 22 and Article 34, when such a restriction respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms and is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard, inter alia, important objectives of general public interest of the Union or of a Member State such as public health.

In its Statement, the EDPB points out that any restriction must respect the essence of the right that is being restricted. If the essence of the right is compromised, the restriction must be considered unlawful. Since the data subject’s right of access and the right to rectification are fundamental rights according to Art. 8 para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, any restriction of those rights must be carefully weighed up by the member states, in order respect the essence of the rights. The EDPB considers that restrictions adopted in the context of a state of emergency suspending or postponing the application of data subject rights, without any clear limitation in time, equate to a de facto blanket suspension and denial of those rights and are not be compatible with the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms.

The EDPB also recalls that the restrictions under Art. 23 GDPR must be necessary and proportionate. It argues that restrictions that are imposed for a duration not precisely limited in time or which apply retroactively or are subject to undefined conditions, are not foreseeable to data subjects and thus disproportionate.

Furthermore, the EDPB takes the view that in order to safeguard important objectives of general public interest such as public health (Art. 23 para. 1 lit. e GDPR), there must be a clearly established and demonstrated link between the foreseen restrictions and the objective pursued. The mere existence of a pandemic or any other emergency situation alone does not justify a restriction of data subject rights, especially if it is not clearly established, how the restrictions can help dealing with the emergency.

Following the international public backlash, the Parliament of Hungary passed legislation on 16 June 2020 to revoke the emergency laws as soons as the current state of emergency will be terminated by the Government. Hungary’s Government announced in May that it intends to lift the state of emergency on 20 June 2020. After that, the restrictions on the GDPR rights shall be lifted as well, so that data subject may exercise their Art. 15-22 GDPR rights again.

Germany’s Constitutional Court curbs Federal Intelligence Service’s competence

16. June 2020

In a court ruling from May 19th 2020 with regards to the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and their manner of operation, the German Constitutional Court has proclaimed that the BND is bound by fundamental rights in cases of surveillance of foreigners, even outside of Germany’ federal territory.

 Background

The case, which was brought to the court in the manner of a constitutional complaint by a collective of foreign journalists, found its origin initially through the disclosures made by Edward Snowden back in 2013, where some of the BND’s practices in relation to strategic foreign surveillance came to light. In 2016, German legislators passed a new law with the purpose to regulate surveillance done by the BND. However, that new law mainly restricted surveillance of German citizens, as well as foreigner living in Germany. It has been criticized that the new law did nothing to restrict and regulate the BND’s actions abroad by not having to abide by any legal provisions. The constitutional complaint brought to the German Constitutional Court deals with strategic surveillance from foreign reporters and journalists with regards to their highly confidential data necessary to perform their work through the BND, which risks to be exchanged with their own country’s intelligence agencies and in the process put them at risk of federal measures taken against them.

The key points

Territorial Scope. One of the biggest points of the court ruling has been the definition of the territorial scope of the fundamental rights at risk in this case. Since the complainants are journalists from outside the German territory, the Constitutional Court had to specify if the constitutional rights that would shield them from surveillance by the BND would find application in the matter. In this instance, the court has ruled that the fundamental rights are not limited to the German territory, but rather apply wherever the German state authority is acting. This is derived from Art. 1 III of the German Constitution (GG), which binds the German state authority to conformity with the Constitution. In such, as the fundamental rights from Art. 10 I, Art. 5 I GG are not simply applicable to Germans, the Constitutional Court has extended the range of application to foreigners in foreign countries, and given them international importance.

Current legislation is unconstitutional. In effect, the Constitutional Court has further analysed the new intelligence law from 2016, and ruled it unconstitutional in the current state. The main reason is that, due to the fact that the legislators assumed that the fundamental rights did not apply, they did not conform with the requirements set out in the Constitution for such law. In such, the new law violates the privacy of telecommunications and its requirements from Art. 10 I GG, and in addition does not meet the key requirements deriving from other fundamental rights, such as Art. 19 I GG. However, the Constitutional Court has stated that the law can be amended to follow fundamental rights and comply with the constitution. The court declared several points which are necessary to implement in the amended law, some of which we will present further below.

Independent oversight. The Constitutional Court stated that in order to ensure conformity with the Constitution and regulate the BND in a way that would ensure the protection of fundamental rights of the people under surveillance, it would be necessary to establish a new, independent oversight regime that would act to judge and regulate strategic surveillance. Its main purposes would be the legal oversight of the BND and protection of the surveillance subjects, as well as the control of the surveillance process, from the analysing of data to the transfer of information between agencies, etc.

Legislative suggestions. In the ruling of the case, the Constitutional Court also made a few suggestions in regards to potential statutory regulation in order to regulate the BND and its area of action better than it was in the past. Part of those suggestions were the necessity of defining the purpose of surveillance measures with precision and clarity, in order to ensure transparency, as well as the necessity for the legislator to set out essential framework for the analysis of the collected data, like a cease in analysis as soon as it becomes clear that the surveillance has touched the core of private life. The court also suggested that special requirements have to apply to the protection of professional groups with communications of increased confidentiality, and that the surveillance in these cases must be tied to qualified thresholds. The court also mentioned the storage and deletion of surveillance data, stating that the traffic data obtained should not be stored for longer than six months, while a systematic deletion policy needs to be established. In the terms of the transfer of information to other (foreign) intelligence agencies, the Constitutional Court made it clear that such transfers will need an official statutory basis in order to be lawful.

The court has given the German government until the end of 2021 to amend the law and make statutory changes to comply with the ruling and the decision of the international scope of the fundamental rights. While this may seem like a big set back for the BND, it is a chance to show that intelligence agencies can work on a high constitutional standard while also being successful in their purpose.

Series on COVID-19 Contact Tracing Apps Part 2: The EDPB Guideline on the Use of Contact Tracing Tools

25. May 2020

Today we are continuing our miniseries on contact tracing apps and data protection with Part 2 of the series: The EDPB Guideline on the Use of Contact Tracing Tools. As mentioned in Part 1 of our miniseries, many Member States of the European Union have started to discuss using modern technologies to combat the spread of the Coronavirus. Now, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has issued a new guideline on the use of contact tracing tools in order to give European policy makers guidance on Data Protection concerns before implementing these tools.

The Legal Basis for Processing

In its guideline, the EDPB proposes that the most relevant legal basis for the processing of personal data using contact tracing apps will probably be the necessity for the performance of a task in the public interest, i.e. Art. 6 para. 1 lit. e) GDPR. In this context, Art. 6 para. 3 GDPR clarifies that the basis for the processing referred to in Art. 6 para. 1 lit. e) GDPR shall be laid down by Union or Members State law.

Another possible legal basis for processing could be consent pursuant to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a) GDPR. However, the controller will have to ensure that the strict requirements for consent to be valid are met.

If the contact tracing application is specifically processing sensitive data, like health data, processing could be based on Art. 9 para. 2 lit. i) GDPR for reasons of public interest in the area of public health or on Art. 9 para. 2 lit. h) GDPR for health care purposes. Otherwise, processing may also be based on explicit consent pursuant to Art. 9 para. 2 lit. a) GDPR.

Compliance with General Data Protection Principles

The guideline is a prime example of the EDPB upholding that any data processing technology must comply with the general data protection principles which are stipulated in Art. 5 GDPR. Contact tracing technology will not be an exeption to this general rule. Thus, the guideline contains recommendations on what national governments and health agencies will need to be aware of in order to observe the data protection principles.

Principle of Lawfulness, fairness and transparency, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. a) GDPR: First and foremost, the EDPB points out that the contact tracing technology must ensure compliance with GDPR and Directive 2002/58/EC (the “ePrivacy Directive”). Also, the application’s algorithms must be auditable and should be regularly reviewed by independent experts. The application’s source code should be made publicly available.

Principle of Purpose limitation, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. b) GDPR: The national authorities’ purposes of processing personal data must be specific enough to exclude further processing for purposes unrelated to the management of the COVID-19 health crisis.

Principles of Data minimisation and Data Protection by Design and by Default, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. c) and Art. 25 GDPR:

  • Data processed should be reduced to the strict minimum. The application should not collect unrelated or unnecessary information, which may include civil status, communication identifiers, equipment directory items, messages, call logs, location data, device identifiers, etc.;
  • Contact tracing apps do not require tracking the location of individual users. Instead, proximity data should be used;
  • Appropriate measures should be put in place to prevent re-identification;
  • The collected information should reside on the terminal equipment of the user and only the relevant information should be collected when absolutely necessary.

Principle of Accuracy, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. d) GDPR: The EDPB advises that procedures and processes including respective algorithms implemented by the contact tracing apps should work under the strict supervision of qualified personnel in order to limit the occurrence of any false positives and negatives. Moreover, the applications should include the ability to correct data and subsequent analysis results.

Principle of Storage limitation, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. e) GDPR: With regards to data retention mandates, personal data should be kept only for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. The EDPB also recommends including, as soon as practicable, the criteria to determine when the application shall be dismantled and which entity shall be responsible and accountable for making that determination.

Principle of Integrity and confidentiality, Art. 5 para. 1 lit. f) GDPR: Contact tracing apps should incorporate appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure the security of processing. The EDPB places special emphasis on state-of-the-art cryptographic techniques which should be implemented to secure the data stored in servers and applications.

Principle of Accountability, Art. 5 para. 2 GDPR: To ensure accountability, the controller of any contact tracing application should be clearly defined. The EDPB suggests that national health authorities could be the controllers. Because contact tracing technology involves different actors in order to work effectively, their roles and responsibilities must be clearly established from the outset and be explained to the users.

Functional Requirements and Implementation

The EDPB also makes mention of the fact that the implementations for contact tracing apps may follow a centralised or a decentralised approach. Generally, both systems use Bluetooth signals to log when smartphone owners are close to each other.  If one owner was confirmed to have contracted COVID-19, an alert can be sent to other owners they may have infected. Under the centralised version, the anonymised data gathered by the app will be uploaded to a remote server where matches are made with other contacts. Under the decentralised version, the data is kept on the mobile device of the user, giving users more control over their data. The EDPB does not give a recommendation for using either approach. Instead, national authorities may consider both concepts and carefully weigh up the respective effects on privacy and the possible impacts on individuals rights.

Before implementing contact tracing apps, the EDPB also suggests that a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) must be carried out as the processing is considered likely high risk (health data, anticipated large-scale adoption, systematic monitoring, use of new technological solution). Furthermore, they strongly recommend the publication of DPIAs to ensure transparency.

Lastly, the EDPB proposes that the use of contact tracing applications should be voluntary and reiterates that it should not rely on tracing individual movements but rather on proximity information regarding users.

Outlook

The EDPB acknowledges that the systematic and large scale monitoring of contacts between natural persons is a grave intrusion into their privacy. Therefore, Data Protection is indispensable to build trust, create the conditions for social acceptability of any solution, and thereby guarantee the effectiveness of these measures. It further underlines that public authorities should not have to choose between an efficient response to the current pandemic and the protection of fundamental rights, but that both can be achieved at the same time.

In the third part of the series regarding COVID-19 contact tracing apps, we will take a closer look into the privacy issues that countries are facing when implementing contact tracing technologies.

Hungarian Government suspends GDPR rights for COVID-19 related Data Processing

12. May 2020

In the face of the Corona pandemic, Hungary is currently in an indefinite “state of emergency”. Originally, Prime Minister Victor Orbán decreed the state of emergency on 11 March 2020 lasting for a period of 15 days. However, on 30 March 2020, the Hungarian Parliament passed emergency legislation (Bill on Protection against Coronavirus or Bill T/9790) extending the state of emergency until terminated by the Prime Minister and allowing the Prime Minister to rule by decree during the state of emergency. The Bill was passed thanks to the two-thirds majority of Orbán’s Fidesz Party in the Hungarian Parliament.

On 4 May 2020, Prime Minister Orbán issued Decree No. 179/2020 which contains several provisions affecting Data Protection in Hungary extensively for the time of the state of emergency.

Most importantly, the decree suspends the individual data subject’s rights pursuant to Art. 15 to 22 of the European GDPR when processing personal data for the purpose of preventing, recognising, and stopping the spread of the Coronavirus. It also stipulates that the one month time limit for Controllers to provide the necessary information (Art. 12 para. 3 GDPR) will only begin after the termination of the state of emergency for any Coronavirus related data subject requests. Furthermore, the data collection information requirements for Controllers pursuant to Art. 13 and 14 GDPR will be satisfied by publishing an electronic privacy notice providing the purpose and the legal basis of data processing which the data subjects may take notice of.

The emergency decree received much criticism from various European Data Protection authorities and civil rights groups. The head of the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) Andrea Jelinek stated that she is “personally very worried” about the developments, and described the Hungarian government’s decision as “unnecessary [and] detrimental”. In its most recent plenary session, the EDPB also specifically discussed Hungary’s emergency measures in light of European Data Protection Law.

Dutch DPA administers record €725 000 fine for GDPR violation

6. May 2020

The Dutch Data Protection Authority, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (Dutch DPA), has issued a EUR 725 000 fine on April 30th to a company for scanning the fingerprints of its employees in order to record attendance.

As fingerprints fall under sensitive data according to Art. 9 GDPR, by being biometric data and therefore can easily identify a data subject, the Dutch DPA has addressed two exceptions in the present case: explicit consent according to Art. 9 II a GDPR, and the necessity of the processing for security reasons, which are related back to Art.9 II g GDPR.

According to the Dutch DPA, none of the two exceptions apply.

In the first case, the Dutch DPA states that the employer has shown no proof of valid explicit consent of the employees. Rather, the Dutch DPA is of the opinion that in an employment relationship, consent cannot be given freely. While it is tricky to ensure freely given consent in situations where one side is dependant on the other, it is possible to ensure such a freely given consent by the means of offering an alternative form of processing, allowing the employee to choose from two options according to their own judgement. In the case brought to the Dutch DPA, this had not been the case. Rather, employees felt obligated to give their consent, especially since the denial resulted in a personal meeting with the director. An alternative option to scanning their fingerprints was not given by the company.

The second exception of the necessity of the processing for security reasons was also dismantled by the Dutch DPA. It reasoned with the fact that such an exception only applies in cases where the security of the systems or the building depend on biometric data, and cannot be done by a less invasive method. While the activities of the company remain confidential, the Dutch DPA has denied them to be of that level of importance that security can only be done through biometrics. Therefore, the fingerprint scanning in the matter was unnecessary and disproportionate to the invasion of the employees’ privacy.

As this case shows, it is recommendable to be careful with the processing of biometric data. In particular, companies should ensure to have valid consent before progressing with the processing of sensitive data to mitigate the risks of a fine.

CNIL announces focus for Control Procedures in 2020

16. March 2020

The french Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) has announced their focus in regards to the Control Procedures they intend to take in 2020.

Out of 300 Control Procedures done in one year, in 2020 at least 50 of those are going to be focused on three prioritized themes: health data security, geolocation and cookies compliance. The CNIL decided on prioritizing these areas because of the high relevance all of them have on the daily life of the french citizens.

Especially in regards to health data because of the sensitive nature of the data collected, as well as geological data, due to the never ending new solutions to transportation or enhancements to daily life, it is important to keep an eye on the scope of the data processing and the private sphere which is affected.

Regarding cookies and other tracers, CNIL continues to underline the importance in regards to profiled advertisement. On top of the planned Control Procedures, the CNIL intends to publish a recommendation in the spring of 2020 with regards to cookies. It will keep an eye on the implementation of the recommendation, and give companies a 6 months period to adjust and implement them.

The CNIL also stated that in addition they will continue to work together with other national Data Protection Authorities, in order to ensure the regulation of transnational data processing.

Greek Data Protection Authority releases Guidance on Cookies

On 25 February 2020, the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (DPA) published a guidance on Cookies and other tracking tools. Previously, the Authority had found that Greek websites and service providers have been largely failing to comply with the rules on the use of Cookies and other trackers set out by the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, and reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice’s ruling on Planet 49.

The guidance states that it will be relevant to HTTP/S Cookies, Flash Cookies, local storage applying to HTML 5, device fingerprinting, OS identifiers, and material identifiers.

The Greek DPA reiterated that, generally, providers are obliged to obtain the user’s consent if they are using any tracking tools – irrespective of whether the processing of personal data is taking place. It also outlined that technically necessary trackers are exempt from the obligation to consent. Furthermore, the guidance goes into detail on how information and consent can be made available on websites specifically.

Lastly, the Authority has given Greek website providers a grace period of two months to implement the provisions of this guidance and thereby become compliant with the European rules on tracking tools.

EDPB publishes GDPR Implementation Review

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released a review dated from February 18th, in a contribution to the evaluation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has reached its 20th month of being in effect.

Overall, the EDPB stated that it has a positive view of the implementation of the legislation in the different European Countries over the past 20 months. Furthermore, it deems a revision of the legislative text as likely, but not yet necessary in the near future.

The EDPB praised the Data Protection Authorities and their work up til now, saying it hopes that the cooperation between them will create a common data protection culture and consistent monitoring practices. But the report also mentioned that Supervisory Authorities in the countries face restrictions due to different national procedures and practices, which can hinder the cooperation. Furthermore, the EDPB sees a need to increase the funding for Supervisory Authorities to improve and support their duties.

On another note, the EDPB has acknowledged the challenges of implementation for Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). It says it is aware of these challenges, and works together with Supervisory Authorities to facilitate the supporting tools they have put out in order to support SMEs.

Lastly, it raised concerns about the timeframe of the new ePrivacy Regulation, and urged lawmakers to bundle their focus and efforts to carry on with its development.

German Robert-Koch-Institute discusses mobile phone tracking to slow down the spreading of the Coronavirus

9. March 2020

According to a news report by the German newspaper “Der Tagesspiegel”, a small group of scientists at the Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) and other institutions are currently discussing the evaluation and matching of movement data from mobile phones to detect people infected with the Coronavirus (COVID-19).

The scientists, who are trying to slow down the spreading of the disease, complain about the problem of the time-consuming and vague questionings of infected people on who they came in contact with. The evaluation and matching of mobile phone data may be more accurate and could speed up the process of identifying infected people, which could be essential for saving lives.

In a comment, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection Ulrich Kelber expressed that this procedure may cause large data protection issues, especially with regards to having a legal basis for processing and the proportionality of processing according to the GDPR.

Belgian DPA releases Direct Marketing Recommendation

4. March 2020

On February 10, 2020, Belgium’s Data Protection Authority (the Belgian DPA) has released their first recommendation of 2020 in relation to data processing activities for direct marketing purposes.

In the recommendation the Belgian DPA addressed issues and action proposals in regards to the handling of direct marketing and the personal data which is used in the process. It emphasized the importance of direct marketing subjects in the upcoming years, and stated that the DPA will have a special priority in regards to issues on the matter.

In particular, the recommendation elaborates on the following points, in order to help controllers navigate through the different processes:

  • The processing purposes must be specific and detailed. A simple mention of “marketing purposes” is not deemed sufficient in light of Art. 13 GDPR.
  • It is important to guarantee data minimization, as the profiling that accompanies direct marketing purposes calls for a careful handling of personal data.
  • The right to object does not only affect the direct marketing activities, but also the profiling which takes places through them. Furthermore, a simple “Unsubscribe” button at the end of a marketing E-Mail is not sufficient to withdraw consent, it is rather recommended to give the data subject the opportunity to a granular selection of which direct marketing activities they object to.
  • Consent cannot be given singularly for all channels of direct marketing. A declaration for each channel has to be obtained to ensure specification towards content and means used for direct marketing.

The Belgian DPA also stated that there are direct marketing activities which require special attention in the future, namely purchasing, renting and enriching personal data, e.g. via data brokers. In such cases, it is necessary to directly provide appropriate information to the data subject in regards to the handling of their data.

Further topics have been brought forth in the recommendation, which overall represents a thorough proposal on the handling of direct marketing activities for controller entities.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 15 16 Next
1 2 3 4 16